The 1990 WCC match between Garry Kasparov and Anatoly Karpov was held from October 8 to December
30. The match locale was split, with the first 12 games played in New York, USA, and the
final 12 in Lyons, France. The prize fund was three million dollars, with 5/8 going to the
winner. In case of a tie, the prize fund would be shared equally with Kasparov retaining the
title.

Unlike the 1987 WCC cycle in which Karpov was seeded directly into the final candidate match,
this time he was only reserved a spot in the quarter finals, and thus had to win three
mini-matches in order to face Kasparov. This he accomplished by defeating Johann Hjartarson
3½ to 1½, Artur Yusupov 4½ to 3½ and Jan Timman 6½ to 2½.

Perhaps as a psychological ploy, Karpov suggested a last minute change
to the rules in the pre-match press conference. Karpov argued that since the
results of their last two matches had been so close, that they should continue play, should they
become locked in a 12-12 tie. Kasparov received this suggestion with a look
of incredulity. "Mr. Karpov is the challenger," he said, "and he must win the
match."[1]

Leaving New York, the score was tied 6-6 (with one win apiece), but Kasparov turned up
the heat in France. The New York Times reported:

Chess experts said Mr. Kasparov had lost confidence and grown nervous in New York after he
had squandered the early lead in some games when he moved too fast to put his opponent away.
Mr. Kasparov picked up steam, however, in Lyons. The match was tied at 8½ points each
after 17 games, but Mr. Kasparov left his opponent almost hopelessly behind by winning the
18th and 20th games.[2]

With a final score of 12½ to 11½, Garry Kasparov retained the title of World Chess Champion.

Pravitel: In the latest book Kasparov vs Karpov 1988-2009 Kasparov claims that he himself won against Karpov almost always after a great big battle where he showed his playing superiority whereas Karpov's victories came after Kasparov's blunders and were basically gifts that didn't reflect the real playing strengths..
Quite funny.

It is true that Kasparov's points came usually after a bigger fight, but this happened, because after committing some mistake(s) that led to a bad position, Karpov started to fight like a madman and seeked every change. The image of Karpov being a extremely tenacious defender is no myth, after reading this series of Karpov's and Kasparov's encounters it has become clearer than ever.

In contrast, when Kasparov commits some mistake that leads him to a equally bad position he is often unable to find the most stubborn moves. And just maybe Karpov plays more accurately with the advantage...

VladimirOo: I completely agree with Pravitel. The way Kasparov systematicaly lessens Karpov in his "Modern Chess" Series amazed me a lot. I could not find a single mark of admiration or of fair-play whenever he lost a game: always "I played wrong, it was not that he played great but because i played like a fool". On the contrary, his wins are always great clashes, titanic and epic battles where he "outplays" his opponent.

Not to mention this story about Vladimirov's spying that should excuse all his defeats (as if opening preparation should determine the game's outcome).

Everett: <Pravitel: In the latest book Kasparov vs Karpov 1988-2009 Kasparov claims that he himself won against Karpov almost always after a great big battle where he showed his playing superiority whereas Karpov's victories came after Kasparov's blunders and were basically gifts that didn't reflect the real playing strengths.. Quite funny.>

This line of thinking by Kasparov may be a necessary fiction that helped his success. He took perhaps extreme responsibility for his wins and losses, stemming from his huge ego, yet resulting in the greatest career of any chess player ever.

talisman: please disregard my Jul 17 post...in regard to MGP...it seems GK does not do justice to Tal and Fischer. 2 people who often have the word genius applied to them. explaining Fischer's 6-0 score against Larsen was due to a "heat wave" in Denver was the last straw for me.

Everett: <Talisman> I've read over those parts in the book, I thought he discussed more issues involved, especially Larsen's optimism backfiring, and his chess-match character flaw of not being able to play for a draw when it was the only thing available. He also credits Fischer with being completely locked-in and focused. Are you sure those sentiments are not in the book? I may need to have my memory tested.

King Death: Larsen also said that the heat in Denver didn't agree with him. I think that we can chalk this one up to the long list of players who couldn't take a loss, learn and move on. Wasn't it Tartakower who wrote that he'd never beaten a healthy opponent? I also remember Tarrasch making some lameass excuse for getting his teeth kicked in by Lasker.

talisman: <Everett> i agree they are. i was eagerly awaiting each installment and my overall reaction was dissapointment. it seemed to me he had only left handed compliments for tal and made fischer's 20-0(counting Panno) run sound like a fluke. i think that GK was too great a player to even semi have to try to put somebody else's light out to have his shine brighter.

King Death: <talisman> Kasparov was a great player, but one of the demons that drove him may have been feelings of insecurity. I'll bet if you look at the lives of great chess players or other sportsmen that many came from broken homes and/or grew up poor. The feelings of insecurity can make somebody try a hell of a lot harder than the kid down the street who has everything their way (if that person doesn't get swallowed whole first). At the same time, some can only feel better about themselves by putting others down.

Everett: Regarding adjournments, it is likely that players like Alekhine, Botvinnik, Fischer and Kasparov really made the most of them. These guys had fanatical work ethic. Combined with amazing practical ability OTB, they each were likely quite happy to enter an adjournment to save a draw or win the game through analysis away from the board. No wonder they were so formidable.

On the other end, other players likely benefitted less so, such as Capablanca, Bronstein, Spassky and Karpov. These players seem not so much into homework compared to simply duking it out OTB.

RedShield: Waitzkin's <Mortal Games> recounts a bizarre story from the first leg of the match.

<One afternoon, during Kasparov's last week in New York, Andrew Page received a phone call from grandmaster Ron Henley, who was one of Karpov's trainers. According to Page, Henley said that he was calling from the office of the man who produced the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, and that they had come up with an idea for a promotion that would involve Garry and Anatoly going down to Atlantic City, or possibly to Las Vegas, for a month. The two grandmasters would set up shop at one of the casinos and play all comers at speed chess for a thousand dollars a game. Presumably, they would win most if not all of the games, and the money would go into a big glass cage. At the end of the month, they would play a match for the money. "This idea was totally out of context. Completely frivolous," recalls Page. After all, Garry was depressed and playing terribly, in danger of returning the world championship to Karpov. While Henley talked, Page was thinking, "This is a trap. Someone is taping this conversation. They are trying to sucker Garry into something preposterous while he is down." It seemed to Page like a trick, an elaborate distraction. Karpov would know that Garry would never agree to this stunt.

"I asked Henley, 'Does Anatoly know about this?' and he put Karpov on the line. He may actually have been on another extension the whole time. Karpov said this was a great way to see America and make a lot of money, that he and Garry could go on tour together from casino to casino. It was mind-boggling that while Kasparov and Karpov were engaged in this grim struggle, with so much at stake, Karpov was proposing this....fluff. I said to him that I would give the idea consideration and hung up. I didn't know what to think." Maybe the former world champion truly believed that there was money to be made with this Ninja Turtle producer, Page calculated. For if it were some kind of trick, Karpov wouldn't have gotten on the phone, he wouldn't have wanted to get his fingers dirty.

[...] But after one more phone call from Henley, the idea was never alluded to again.>

RedShield: Some may recall that, in addition to the $3 million prize fund, the winner would receive a Korloff-made, diamond-encrusted trophy 'in the form of two interwoven letters 'K', the value of which was estimated at one million dollars'. After the match, Kasparov announced it would be auctioned for the benefit of Armenian refugees:

<We actually met in 1990, when Kirsan was not known at all. He showed up in our room of the Azeri consulate in Moscow where we lived with my mother after we had to leave Baku, and he came up with a chess book. He wrote some sort of chess book for kids, because he is a first category player, and he wanted me to write the foreword, so that's how we met. After my match with Karpov in 1990, he actually organized this consortium of buyers to get this crown I sold and eventually distributed, about 300,000 dollars, by exchange rate at that time, 10 million rubles, I distributed it to Armenian refugees from Baku. So that's how we met.>

Rookiepawn: I do not like adjourned games, that way a game between two players becomes a game between two teams, plus engines, plus... anything you can throw upon the board to solve the position and all its variants.

offramp: <alexmagnus: This match is also known for the fact that the players played under different flags: Karpov played (still) under the Soviet flag, Kasparov (already) under the Russian one.>

I have looked at a lot of pictures from the 1990 match, including the one on this page. Most of then show no flags. After all, what's the point?

But I found this one from the New York half, from The Manchester Guardian: http://i.guim.co.uk/static/w-700/h-...
That does seem to prove that at least in New York the players chose two different flag-symbols on their name-plates.

HeMateMe: For some reason, in the '92 Olympics all the soviet bloc teams competed under either the Olympic five ring flag, or some sort of made up flag, for the moment. I guess the people from Belarus Kazakhstan, etc., didn't actually have their own flags they could use for the Olympic games?

NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply.
Getting your account takes less than a minute, totally anonymous,
and 100% free--plus, it
entitles you to features otherwise unavailable.
Pick your username now and join the chessgames community!
If you already have an account, you should
login now.

Please observe our posting guidelines:

No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.

No spamming, advertising, or duplicating posts.

No personal attacks against other users.

Nothing in violation of United States law.

See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform an administrator.

NOTE: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page.
This forum is for this specific tournament and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or
this site, you might try the Kibitzer's Café.

Messages
posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.